Like Revere and the folks at The Scientist, I received the series of emails from "ACS insider" questioning the way the American Chemical Society is running its many publications -- and in particular, how compensation of ACS executives (and close ties to the chemical industry) might influence editorial policies at ACS publications.
The ACS disputes the details of the anonymous emails, so I won't have much to say about those. But as an ACS member (who is, at present, participating in an ACS regional meeting), I'd like to ask the Society for some clarity.
Does each member matter to the ACS?
We all pay our membership dues, whether we work in academia or industry, in research of chemical education, whether a student, a full professor, a CEO, or a chemist who has been laid off to improve the bottom-line.
Does the ACS take all of our interests seriously? Or do the interests of the captains of industry count for more, in shaping ACS policy, than those of the chemists who don't have quite so much money to wave around?
Especially if ACS is using its resources (as a non-profit membership organization) to do things like lobby against open access, it might be worth examining which members are having their interests overlooked -- indeed, which members have interests that the ACS may actively be working against....
What should we know about the editorial policies of ACS publications?
Specifically, are there certain kinds of issues that we should not expect to see covered in ACS publications? If so, is this because these issues don't matter to any ACS member? Or is it because these issues are uncomfortable for the constituencies within the ACS who really matter? ...
Are there any potential conflicts of interest ACS executives and editors of ACS publications ought to disclose to the membership?
The first step to managing potential conflicts of interest is to recognize and disclose them. Transparency would help a lot, whereas non-disclosure can't help but look like something is being hidden....
From Baum's response:
The editorial independence of editors of ACS publications, including C&EN, is guaranteed by the ACS Constitution, Bylaws & Regulations. There are no topics of interest to the general community of chemists that are off limits at C&EN....
ACS has a clear and consistent policy on open access. The anonymous emails that have been circulated have made much of three editorials I have written that were critical of open access. I happen to think that the extreme open access model advocated by its most rabid proponents is very bad idea that will do substantial harm to the scientific enterprise, and I have written to that effect. I know you and some members of ACS disagree. However, I never asked anyone at ACS what they thought of my opinion on open access and I certainly did not coordinate my editorials with any activities of the society....
As to ACS policies, as on open access, please remember that these policies were not developed by ACS staff members, as implied in the anonymous e-mails, but by ACS governance bodies ultimately responsible to the Board of Directors, a body elected by the membership of ACS.
Comment. For background, "ACS Insider" alleged that ACS executives received bonuses based on the profits of ACS publications. I didn't edit out Baum's answer to the question about conflicts of interest; he didn't give an answer. But Madeleine Jacobs, executive director of the ACS, confirmed to the Chronicle of Higher Education on October 24 that "senior executives and some managers in the publishing division" did receive such incentives.
Update. Paul Revere at Effect Measure has some pointed comments on Baum's response to Stemwedel:
If I were polite, I'd say Baum's response was disingenuous. But I'm not so polite, so I'll just say I don't believe him....
Baum is not opposed to "extreme" forms of rabid open access. He is opposed to all open access, although he deliberately mischaracterizes it in ways that all open access appears extreme....
I find Baum's editorials intellectually dishonest and the machinations of the ACS in trying to defeat an important development in science publishing reprehensible....
Posted by
Peter Suber at 11/01/2007 04:20:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
